A friend and Humpist from America (who was also a Cambridge contemporary) sent me this link to a new paper calling for the withdrawal of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID “vaccines.” It is not the first such report.
The paper is, primarily, a useful review of both the other calls for withdrawal, and of the evidence demonstrating unprecedented (yes, genuinely unprecedented in this case) mortality and morbidity from the experimental mRNA drug platform, as well as their all-too-precedented ineffectiveness for preventing infection, death or transmission. The most dramatic sentence is probably this one:
As of April 26, 2024, according to VAERS, the total number of reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths (37,544 among all countries that use VAERS) have far exceeded the recall limits of past vaccine withdrawals by up to 375,340%.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a six-figure percentage before. And here’s the graphic to prove it:

Now, bear in mind that this more or less coincides with what amounts to a scandal over the British AstraZeneca viral vector “vaccine,” the agent having only recently been finally withdrawn over serious adverse reactions, after being mysteriously sidelined and unavailable since only a few months after its much-trumpeted roll-out as a “Britain leads the world” triumph (much like Net Zero). An article yesterday in the Telegraph highlights this, with an ex-minister blaming the Yellow Card system for the “missing information” on adverse reactions.
For foreign readers, our Yellow Card system is the equivalent of the US VAERS, and is indeed as inadequate for accurate surveillance as that system is. But its purpose is only to flag potential problems for investigation, and I refuse to believe that there was any lack of yellow card red flags from the start of the AZ rollout, despite the “safe and effective don’t kill your granny” nudging and censorship that, even more than usual, inhibited health professionals from sending in reports. They will have been sending in plenty on Pfizer and Moderna too, especially once the NHS booster programme depended, and still depends, on those brands.
The problem here, as in America and around the “developed” world, was that the red flags, inadequate as they undoubtedly were, were ignored by those in authority. And they are still being ignored, as evidenced by the hostile “anti-vaxxer” questioning of Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. at his confirmation hearings in the Senate. Apart from anything else, he was subjected to a shibboleth demand that he vow allegiance to all vaccines. That this is an absurdity at every level is obvious, for it buys into the all-too-prevalent creed, even accepted by most of my profession, that the very word “vaccine” when applied to a pharmaceutical agent negates any possibility of harm, despite numerous counter-examples including the first polio vaccine and the recent Pandemrix.
Senators could only make such stupid demands in public if it were not, still, the “public narrative” that there is nothing to see regarding the COVID drugs. It is still the case that parliamentary debates on vaccine risks are boycotted by most politicians, that official inquiries studiously steer away from the question, and that even authoritative reports like that of the US Congressional Committee I referenced here remain unreported in the press.
Now to me and my US friend – and to many readers here, some of whom within the medical profession have tried in vain to interest professional bodies and politicians in the problem – this indicates a profound degree of deception of ordinary people by powerful people with an agenda. To others, it indicates that the world is awash with misinformation from the likes of the recent report’s authors. I’ve even had another university contemporary contacting me to suggest as much: certainly a swings and roundabouts situation for me.
Maybe it is indeed true that all the governments, corporations and agencies are doing their best for us, and that the official narrative on “safe and effective vaccines” (together with all the other controversies on masks, lockdowns, lab leaks and so on that I haven’t mentioned today) is true. If so, then never before in the history of mankind have so many millions of unfortunate people imagined they are iatrogenic victims, and never have so many tens of thousands of medical and scientific professionals around the world, including Nobel laureates, been shown to be so susceptible to irresponsible gossip from anonymous fools.
Perhaps social media do have that power over even those of us who don’t use it. Alternatively, though, never before in the history of mankind have so many governments, professional bodies and communicators bought into such a strong delusion through the power of deliberate propaganda motivated by power, money and ideology.
Which of those is true we must each decide. For my money, the second is more in line with biblical prophecy and empirical truth.
Footnote on the two final alternatives above: either intelligent people have been fooled by the undirected rumour-mongering of ill-informed people, OR intelligent people have been fooled by the careful misdirection of other intelligent people with strong motivation to deceive. It’s really a design v. chance argument, isn’t it?
I used to be a fan of Hanlon’s razor, but the pandemic weakened my faith. As Brett Weinstein (I think) said: if they were just incompetent, at least they’d get things right sometimes, just by chance.
Quite so – think how we assume the lack of progress in backward states is due to corruption, rather than simply incompetence. Why would we assume that, apart from a strong cultural ethic, those with power should have purely benign intentions in its use?
Acronyms have been so intensively employed they’ve become funny. DOGE, catholic administration, OPM, Ari’s leverage or opium for the plebs.
Old sayings spring to mind recurrently, cui bono. Then I wonder if I’ve stumbled originally onto a spoonerism, “beware geeks bearing grifts”. We’re looking to make sense of it all but indeed at its simplest, never mind higher debate, how come we can’t get poisons banned?
At least Trump in his 47th appears resolute and resourced in his action to correct course. What’s it going to take to prevent the U.K. continuing to douse itself in petrol whilst dangerous people hold the matches?
“Beware geeks bearing grifts”
Love it! Consider it pirated. I don’t think it it works in Latin.